Non-adjoint Conjugate of Pure State Vector

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pythagorean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjugate
Pythagorean
Science Advisor
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
327
If I have a pure state vector of a system (let's call it A):

-0.4431 + 0.2317i
-0.4431 + 0.2317i
0.5000
0.5000

A particularly interesting symmetry in the system allows a similar pure state (B):

-0.4431 - 0.2317i
-0.4431 - 0.2317i
0.5000
0.5000

the absolute value of the inner product is
|B'*A| = .8861
(as opposed to 1, since these are only conjugates of each other and not adjoints, or
hermitian conjugates. For instance, A'*A = 1 where A' is the adjoint of A).

question:
is there a specific name for the relationship between A and B besides just conjugate? In the literature, and especially with state vecto.rs, conjugate and adjoint are used interchangeably.

This is a classical case of misleading intuition with the complex space. I imagined that as you rotated the vector around, there would be a second position (B) that would return 1 if you took the inner product of it with A, by symmetry. I didn't suspect that the inner product could detect an "anti-parallel" vector.

Of course, note that as you rotate the vector B around, it has two clear maximum peaks. The largest peak is when B = A so your inner product is A'*A = 1 exactly, but the second largest peak occurs when B is "anti-parallel" (the conjugate non-adjoint) at the .8861 value mentioned.

In this respect, it reminds me of harmonics. I expected the two peaks opposite each other to both go to 1, but they did not and now I want to better understand what exactly I'm doing. It looks like maybe I'm only rotating it around the imaginary plane, not the whole complex plane, and the projection in the complex plane gets distorted (shortened) somehow.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When solving quadratic equations one usually gets conjugates as zeroes. E.g. the formula for ##x^2+px+q=0# is solved by conjugates. This is also true for higher degrees, just that the automorphisms are not of order 2 then. So it is very likely that your observation is due to the specific underlying equations.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top